Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question.
One observation I would have is—I heard Monsieur Champoux express that this wasn't his intention, but the concern would be—that this potentially imposes a seven-year cap on all proposed section 9.1 orders.
I certainly understand that the spirit of this is to ensure that the CRTC reviews orders from time to time. I would remind the committee, though, that there are a number of different kinds of section 9.1 orders, which will vary in importance. Obviously, some may be quite important in terms of their impact, but there will be others that are more minor. The question becomes whether the intention is really to impose an obligation on the CRTC to review every order on its books.
That would be one observation. The second one would simply concern the language about “conditions” of any order.
I believe the spirit there is to say “may amend any order”, rather than the “term or conditions” of it. I think Monsieur Champoux was just speaking about the ability to change an order.
Those would be my two observations, Mr. Chair.